Præfektura apostolica Poli arcici- The Polar Prefecture

Norway was partly converted to Christianity already in the 11th century, although the heathen believes continued to stay strong in certain regions of the country. In the 17th Century the nation was turned over to protestantism by force after the so called "Reformation" and a Lutheran "State Church" was imposed on everybody. For more than 2 Centuries it was forbidden to practise Catholicism in the region. But in 1855 the See of Rome was able to start a new mission in Norway and the Polar Region; the "Præfektura apostolica Poli arcici." And even though most Catholics abandoned their Catholic Traditions in order to be accepted by the Second Vatican Council sect, there are still Catholics left.. People who wish to stay faithful to the Teachings of the ancient, never changing Catholic Church, with it's Papacy, Doctrines and Traditions. People who reject heresies like modernism, freemasonry, false ecumenism and "salvation" in foreign religions. Regular Catholics in other words.

Search This Blog

Friday, October 8, 2010

Joseph Ratzinger was a manifest heretic BEFORE he was elected "pope"!

It is evident that Joseph Ratzinger was a manifest heretic BEFORE he was elected "pope." Before we look into this in further detail, let's look at what the Church has to say about heretics and if they can be elected Pope:

Pope Leo XIII:s encyclica Satis Cognitum, 29th of June, 1896: ”The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM”.

Pope Eugenius IV says EX CATHEDRA in the bulle Cantate Domino from 1441: ”Therefore it (the Church) condemns, rejects, anathematizes and DECLARES TO BE OUTSIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST, WHICH IS THE CHURCH, WHOEVER HOLDS OPPOSING OR CONTRARY VIEWS”.

”In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which IS TO REMAIN VALID IN PERPETUITY We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be ACTING as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or EVEN THE ROMAN PONTIFF, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or ROMAN PONTIFF HAS DEVIATED FROM THE CATHOLIC FAITH OR FALLEN INTO SOME HERESY:

(i) the promotion or elevation, EVEN IF IT SHALL HAVE BEEN UNCONTESTED AND BY THE UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF ALL THE CARDINALS. SHALL BE NULL, VOID AND WORTHLESS;

(ii) IT SHALL NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR IT TO ACQUIRE VALIDITY (NOR FOR IT TO BE SAID THAT IT HAS THUS AQUIRED VALIDITY) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, OR VENERATION, OR OBEDIENCE ACCORDED TO SUCH BY ALL, NOR TO THE LAPSE OF ANY PERIOD OF TIME in the forgoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, NO AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE BEEN GRANTED, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) EACH AND ALL OF THEIR WORDS, DEEDS, ACTIONS AND ENACTMENTS, HOWSOEVER MADE, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, SHALL BE WITHOUT FORCE AND SHALL GRANT NO STABILITY WHATSOEVER NOR ANY RIGHT TO ANYONE;

(vi) THOSE THUS PROMOTED OR ELEVATED SHALL BE DEPRIVED AUTOMATICALLY, AND WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY FURTHER DECLARATION, OF ALL DIGNITY, POSITION, HONOUR, TITLE, AUTHORITY, OFFICE AND POWER.”

We have now seen that a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church, and therefore he can not be the head of a Church where he is not even a member!!
We have also seen that a person who turns out to have been a heretic PRIOR to his election and elevation to the papal office, automatically looses his office and power, even if he should have the title "pope". He looses this office AUTOMATICALLY and WITHOUT NEED for any further DECLARATION. Now, let's look at some of Ratzingers manifest heresies BEFORE he was elected "pope":
Part 1 – CHURCH UNITY!

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 148: ”The canon of Holy Scripture can be traced back to them, or, at least, to the UNDIVIDED CHURCH OF THE FIRST CENTURUES of which they were the representatives.”

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 147: ”The Fathers, we can now say, were the theological teachers of the UNDIVIDED CHURCH…”

Joseph Ratzinger, Co-workers of the truth: meditations for every day of the year (1990) p. 29:
”To borrow Congar's cogent phrase, it would be both foolish and perverse to identify THE EFFICACY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT WITH THE WORK OF THE ECCLESIAL APPARATUS. THIS MEANS THAT EVEN IN CATHOLIC BELIEF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF FORMATI ON; THAT IT WILL BE TOTALLY ACHIEVED ONLY IN THE EASCHATON”

Now, this is what the true Church says:
The niceno-konstantinopolitan creed 381, ex cathedra: ”We believe in… One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognium, 29th of June 1896: ”The Church in respect of its UNITY belongs to the category of things INDIVISIBLE by nature…”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 29th of June 1896: ”… This UNITY CANNOT BE BROKEN, nor the ONE BODY DIVIDED BY THE SEPARATION OF ITS CONSTITUENT PARTS.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 6th of Jan, 1928: ”… here it seems opportunate to expound and to refute a certain false opinion..For they are of OPINION THAT THE UNITY OF FAITH AND GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS A NOTE OF THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, HAS HARDLY UP TO THE RESENT TIME EXISTED, AND DOES NOT TODAY EXIST.”

The heresies of Ratzingers BEFORE he was elected "pope"
PART 2- the MESSIAH!

Joseph Ratzinger, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. 2001: ”Jewish MESSIANIC EXPECTATION IS NOT IN VAIN…”

Joseph Ratzinger, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. 2001: ”…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, WHICH EXCLUDE FAITH IN JESUS AS MESSIAH AND SON OF GOD…CHRISTIANS CAN AND OUGHT TO ADMIT THAT THE JEWISH READING OF THE BIBLE IS A POSSIBLE ONE…”

Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p.209: ”IT IS OF COURSE POSSIBLE TO READ THE OLD TESTAMENT SO THAT IT IS NOT DIRECTED TOWARD CHRIST; IT DOES NOT POINT QUITE UNEQUIVOCALLY TO CHRIST. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts..THERE ARE PERFECTLY GOOD REASONS, THEN, FOR DENYING THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT REFERS TO CHRIST AND FOR SAYING, NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”

(I think most people know that it is a CATHOLIC DOGMA that you have to believe that Jesus is the Messiah in order to be a Christian...)
The heresies of Ratzingers BEFORE he was elected "pope"
PART 3 – the SCRIPTURES:

Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000 p. 153: ”It is another thing to see he Bible as a whole as the Word of God, in which everything relates to everything else, and everything is disclosed as you go on. It follows straightway that neither the criterion of inspiration nor that of infallibility can be applied mechanically. IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO PICK OUT ONE SINGLE SENTENCE AND SAY, RIGHT, YOU FIND THIS SENTENCE IN GOD’S GREAT BOOK, SO IT MUST SIMPLY BE TRUE IN ITSELF…”

Joseph Ratzinger, A New Song For the Lord, 1995, p.86: ”THE PAGAN CREATION ACCOUNTS ON WHICH THE BIBLICAL STORY IS IN PART BASED end without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this case is situated in the cycle of the do ut des.”

Now, look at what the true Church says:

Pope Pius IX, Vatikancouncil, Sess III, chap 3, ex cathedra: ”Further, by divine and Catholic faith, ALL THOSE THINGS MUST BE BELIEVED WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 18th of November, 1893: ”FOR ALL THE BOOKS WHICH THE CHURCH RECEIVES AS SACRED AND CANONICAL, ARE WRITTEN WHOLLY AND ENTIRELY, WITH ALL THEIR PARTS, AT THE DICTATION OF THE HOLY GHOST: and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not inly is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. THIS IS THE ANCIENT AND UNCHANGING FAITH OF THE CHURCH, SOLEMNLY DEFINED IN THE COUNCILS OF FLORENCE AND OF TRENT, and finally confirmed and more expressely formulated by the Council of the Vatican.”

The heresies of Ratzingers BEFORE he was elected "pope"
PART 4- the PAPAL OFFICE:
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), s.198: ”NOR IS IT POSSIBLE, ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR HIM TO REGARD AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE FORM AND, CONSEQUENTLY, AS BINDING ON ALL CHRISTIANS THE FORM THIS PAPACY HAS TAKEN IN THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch (heretikern Athenagoras) were an attempt to express precisely this…”

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), s. 198-199: ”In other words, ROME MUST NOT REQUIRE MORE FROM THE EAST WITH RESPECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY THAN HAD BEEN FORMULATED AND WAS LIVED IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, THIS GREAT CHURCH LEADER WAS EXPRESSING THE ECCLESIAL CONTENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY AS IT WAS KNOWN IN THE FIRST MILLENNIUM. ROME NEED NOT ASK FOR MORE.

Now look at what the true Church says:

Pope Pius IX, Mortalium Animos, 6th of January 1928: ”AMONG THEM (heretics and schismatics) THERE INDEED ARE SOME, THOUGH FEW, WHO, GRANT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF A PRIMACY OF HONOR or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican council, ex cathedra: ”….all the faithful of Christ MUST BELIEVE that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world…This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.

Pope Bonifacius VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18th of November 1302:, ex cathedra: ”…we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The heresies of Ratzingers BEFORE he was elected "pope"
PART 5– PROTESTANTISM:

Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966 p. 61,68: ”…Meantime THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NO RIGHT TO ABSORB OTHER CHURCHES….A BASIC UNITY – OF CHURCHES THAT REMAIN CHURCHES, YET BECOME ONE CHURCH – MUST REPLACE THE IDEA OF CONVERSION.”

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 263: ”THAT WHICH IN LUTHER MAKES ALL ELSE BEARABLE BECAUSE OF THE GREATNESS OF HIS SPIRITUAL FERVOR…”

Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 304: ”…Taize (protestant ”monastery”) has been, without a doubt, the leading example of an ecumenical inspiration…SIMILAR COMMUNITIES OF FAITH (sic!) AND OF SHARED LIVING SHOULD BE FORMED ELSEWERE…”

Anti-pope Benedict XVI, 17th of August 2005 speaking of the death of ”brother” Roger Shutz (the protestant founder of a heretical ecumenical ”monastery”): ”BRO. ROGER SHUTZ is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; HE HAS ARRIVED AT ETERNAL JOY…”

Anti-pope Benedict XVI, in his speach to protestants during the World Youth Day, 19th of August 2005: ”And we now ask: What does it mean to RESTORE THE UNITY OF ALL CHRISTIANS?...THIS UNITY DOES NOT MEAN WHAT COULD BE CALLED ECUMENISM OF THE RETURN: THAT IS, TO DENY AND REJECT ONE’S OWN FAITH HISTORY. ABSOLUTELY NOT!”

Now let's look at what the true Church says:
St. Gregorius the Great in his maxim: ”The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her AND ASSERTS THAT ALL WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF HER WILL NOT BE SAVED.”

There is no doubt about it. Joseph Ratzinger was a manifest heretic BEFORE he was elevated to the papal office, and therefore he is not a member of the Church, and can not be it's Head.. Any heretic looses his office AUTOMATICALLY and WITHOUT NEED for any further DECLARATION. Even a "pope"..when found to be a heretic BEFORE his election to an office..

There have been over 40 anti-popes during history, men who falsely claimed to be popes but turned out to be heretics. You also need to concider that a pope can sin on a personal level and still be pope. It is when he publicly defects from the faith by teaching obstinate heresy that he automatically looses his office. But if he is just a bad pope who have fallen into some sin on a personal level, he can still teach ex cathedra (infallibly on issues of faith and morals that are binding to the entire Church). The reason why even a bad pope could do this, is because he does not speak of himself, but the Holy Spirit speaks through him. A pope who has lost his office can not speak ex cathedra as he is not annointed by the Spirit for this office anymore.

On a secondary note it was under Pope Paul III (1534–1549) that the council of Trent was written. That not only resulted in the killings of those that believed salvation was by faith alone also gave the modern idea that Mary was sinless. This same pope also had many children outside of wedlock.

He also stated that it was permissible to make slaves of "enemies of Christendom" as this would be considered by the Church as a "just war".

It is a typical protestant mistake to believe that if a Church Council makes a statement, then it means that the teaching is something new. Not so! A Council needs to make new and REPETED statement about Church teachings that have always been believed when someone for the first time starts to question the teaching or when a heresy becomes popular. This is to help the ignorant and prevent them from being deceived. It does not mean that it was never believed before. And don't forget that people who taught faith alone lead souls to hell. Even Calvin burned people at the stake. Christianity has never been a pacifist religion. Now, that's a modern teaching! There was a 30 year war, and many Catholics died too. And, there is a lot of protestant propaganda involved. Have you ever read a Catholic history book, say Hilaire belloc? The last part comes from Catholic Tradition, even the Bible itself is a part of Catholic Tradition. You should read this blogpost for your answer but one reference isPope Pius IV bulla Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio from the 15th of february 1559.

Never been pacifist? Anabaptists, are not from Protestants, and have been pacifist from the beginning.

As to things being new, that is very much the case with the council of Trent.

Such as with the issue of Mary being sinless, many popes had a different stance.

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2) When

We also see from other "Church Fathers"

(215 AD Tertullian) “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3).

Clement of Alexandria “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

St. Irenaeus says, “ For more Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."

Quotes from: http://www.letusreason.org/rc1.htm

Protestantism does come indeed from a rebellion, but you are forgetting that there were many who were outside the Catholic Church such as the Anabaptists, Waldensions, believers in Iona, even in Iran there is a group that has held what would be called evangelical beliefs from bibical times. I can give some more examples if you like.

Where did you find that he burned people at the stake?

The inquisition lasted for 600 years, under 80 popes. Killing Jews, Christians and Muslims.

You can't say that the inquisition killed people from other religions, since INQUISITION is INTERNAL affairs in the Church. The only people an inquisition ever executed where people WITHIN the Catholic Church who themselves claimed to be Catholic, but taught heresy. And so they had a TRIAL first, and where executed if found guilty.

The anabaptists are Calvinist and therefore a branch of protestantism, and they can not be traced back to the Apostles. In fact, the only Church that historically can prove to hold the Apostolic Tradition all the way from the Apostles and up to this very day IS the Catholic Church. Of course there are many who make the same claim, but not with written, historical proof. They escape to the theory of "there were always a small group of true, Bible-believing Christians somewhere, sometimes under-ground.." but this is a claim with no evidence involved.

It is true that the definition about wether or not The Blessed Virgin was conceived immaculate or saved from original sin right after her conception, while STILL IN HER MOTHERS WOMB was not defined from the very start. But the teaching that she was BORN without sin have always been a teaching of the Church. Before the immaculate conception was defined, these 2 views were allowed, which is the rule of all teachings that have not been defined. After it was defined, the immaculate conception is a binding dogma in the Church. It means that it was not a new teaching, only an old one now defined in greater detail.

About the reference to Calvin burning someone at the stake, an internet reference (one of many) is http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

I first red it in the book "Where we got the Bible" by Henry G. Graham. But it's just an ordinary historical fact, so you should be able to look it up in various historical encyclopedias.

John Calvin had the man arrested however to claim that he had people (plural) burnt at the stake is not valid either way. There are several accounts that he tried to have him not executed by appealing to the authorities.

In regards to the assumption of Mary for example there is no bibical text or any text to support this in the first 400 years.

It was not declared dogma until 1950.

"No basis, biblical, apostolic, or postapostolic, exists in support of the doctrine. Apocryphal documents of the fourth century, Gnostic in character, such as the Passing of Mary hint at it....The doctrine was first treated in deductive theology about 800. Benedict XIV (d. 1758) proposed it as a probable doctrine." http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/assumpt.htm

Do you believe that Pope innocent the third was an antipope for stating the following?

“She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

Was St. Irenaeus a heretic for disagreeing with her being sinless?

In the scriptures we see Mary say "Thank God my SAVIOUR" and again we see her give a sin offering. She would have no need of a sin offering if she was without sin.

Romans 3:23For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

The Church was established on the eternal rock and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, regardless of the name that is thrown on the group of believers at a period of time. That has been around much longer than Calvin, Luther, or others.

The inquisition certainly did persecute non catholics, simply read the council of trent in regards of duties enforced upon Jews and Muslims living in Europe.

Non Catholic books and property were often burned. Qurans, Jewish Books or even the Bible in the common language were confiscated and burned. Such was the Luthern translation by order of the pope in 1624.

Seriously, I think you are mixing up the "inquisition" with the Crusades. Or your source is.. If it had not been for the Crusades, all of Europe, and therefore even the U.S. would be muslim today...The word inquisition comes from "inquiry", and concerns internal Church affairs.You could only be put before an inquisition tribunal if you were a baptized Catholic. If you want some constructive information about it, this is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ_xohxaLEo&feature=player_profilepage

Secondly, the Rock you are referring to is clearly pointed out to be St.Peter by Christ himself in the Bible (Matt 16:18, Matt 16:19, John 1:42, John 21:15-17) This is also why St.Peter always is listed first in the Bible every time the Apostles are listed. And it is an historical fact that St.Peter was executed in Rome, and that before he died, he appointed St.Linus to become the Bishop of Rome(another title of the Pope) after him.

Thirdly, the parents of the Blessed Virgin, St. Anne and St. Joachim, where not immaculate, (even thought they lived very holy lives)and so they conceived in sin like all others, but at the moment of Mary's conception she was saved in advance (by Christs death on the Cross)and became immaculate. So you are misinterpreting your own quotes, that's all.

Fourthly, on Mary's assumption into heaven, there is given a hint of this in Rev.12:1-8. But even though there is not a Bible verse that says "Mary was lifted into heaven", you have to remember that there are a lot of Christian facts that are not written in the Bible, but only given hints to, like "the Trinity" f.ex. And the Gospels are primerely an account of the life of Christ, not everybody else around Him. And her assumption took place about 30 years after His ascention. There are also others who were lifted into heaven before her in the Old Testament, and the Bible states that the Ark of the Old Covenant is in Heaven (Revelations), and since the Ark is a prototype of Mary (The Ark carried the Old Law inside, and Mary Carried the New Law, Jesus, inside)this is also a prototype of Mary's assumption. Another passage is Psalm 132:8.."Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the Ark, which thou hast sanctified."

Fifthly, it HAS ALWAYS been a teaching of the Church that Mary was sinless. Don't forget, she is the Second Eve (Gen 3:14-15), and everytime Jesus speaks to Mary as "woman" He is identifying her as the woman in Gen 3. And just as the second Adam (Jesus)was greater than his prototype the first Adam, so the second Eve (Mary) was greater than her prototype the first Eve. If the first Eve was born immaculate, then the second Eve could not be any less. In the Old testament the queen is always the MOTHER of the king, not the Kings wife. So there you have her Queenship. When Jesus is King in his Kingdom, His Mother would be the Queen. And the Holy Spirit could not espouse Mary and let her conceive if she had any sin. God can not become one with a sinner, as God is Holy and Mary would have died when the Holy Spirit came over her if she had sin. And Jesus could not take the flesh of a sinful woman and still be the God-Man without sin. Mary's sinlessness protects the doctrine of Christs sinless and divine Nature. These are not teachings from the 1950's but from the very beginning of the Church. Her immaculate conception has also been celebrated in the Church calender through history..

Oh, and a difference beteen Jesus and Mary is that Jesus was not "saved from sin" when He was born, as God does not need to be saved by anyone else. Mary was born sinless, but she was SAVED FROM SIN by Christ. So she was not born without sin IN THE SAME WAY as Jesus. This is what some of your quotes are referring to.

Regarding the burning of books, the church has burned bad books to protect the people. You can even read about how people burned books in the Bible when they converted, in Pauls letter. They did not burn Catholic Bibles, and there were many Catholic Bibles in the vernacular tounges that the Church let people read. But they did burn corrupt translations of the Bible in the vernacular tounges, like protestant Bibles. This is because Bibletranslations with errors, translated to refute the true Christian Church and her Gospel are just as dangerous as other bad books. But at the time when Luther translated his Bible into German, there were already 17 versions of the Bible in the German language in existence. The church does not wish to keep the Biblemessage from the people, this is just protestant propaganda again.

Regarding Galileo..You are mistaken. The Church did not make Galileo change his belief in the way that you are presenting it. The Church has always followed a principle when it comes to all sciences, that they can only become official when they are proven to be true. When Galileo presented his theory, it had not been satisfyingly proven, and the Church would never accept a new teaching on a loose foundation. Galileo would, like any other scientist, be required to keep his theories to himself until they could meet the proper conditions.

Mary did bring an offering of purification to fulfill the Law,(she always kept the Law while under the Old Covenant) when she had given birth to Jesus, because she was very obedient to God, but she also did this because she was so humble and to show people what they needed to do. Even Luther's comment on this is that "she did not need to do this, but still did because she was so humble."

Pope Alexander III at the Third Lateran Ecumenical Council: “We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians - and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be slaves to Christians.” (Canon 26)

Pope Benedict XIV: “It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as slaves rejected by that Saviour Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the slaves of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.” (Quoting Pope Innocent III, “Etsi Judaeos”)

Pope Innocent IV: “We who long with all our hearts for the salvation of souls, grant you full authority by these present letters to banish the Jews, either in your own person or through the agency of others, especially since, as we have been informed, they do not abide by the regulations drawn up for them by this Holy See.” (To the King of France)

Pope Saint Pius V: “With full understanding and in exercising of the apostolic powers, we withdraw from the Jews and their rule (and recognize no right or claim) all properties, which the Jews have in their possession in this city Rome or other places of our domain of rule.” (Cum Nos Super)

Another side note... Forth Laternum Council (i liked reading that one)...

Jews must wear special clothing.

They must only live in cities where Synagogues existed. They were forbidden to go into cities where they not. They were forbidden to repair their buildings unless they were falling inwards. They were forbidden to change anything cosmedic. They were forbidden to make new ones. Jews were also not aloud to live in buildings owned by Catholics. They had to live in a specific ward of the city. They also had to pay tithe to the Catholic Church despite not being apart of.

Listen, your quote has been altered and taken out of context. And so have some of your previous quotes as well.. The word "slave" does not even occur in the text. The context is about how Christians should not employ Jews in their houses, aspecially not to take care of their children..This is the real quote:Third Lateran Council 1179:26. Jews and Saracens are not to be allowed to have christian servants in their houses, either under pretence of nourishing their children or for service or any other reason. Let those be excommunicated who presume to live with them. We declare that the evidence of Christians is to be accepted against Jews in every case, since Jews employ their own witnesses against Christians, and that those who prefer Jews to Christians in this matter are to lie under anathema, since Jews ought to be subject to Christians and to be supported by them on grounds of humanity alone. If any by the inspiration of God are converted to the christian faith, they are in no way to be excluded from their possessions, since the condition of converts ought to be better than before their conversion. If this is not done, we enjoin on the princes and rulers of these places, under penalty of excommunication, the duty to restore fully to these converts the share of their inheritance and goods.

You are never going to learn the Catholic Faith by googling anti-catholic web sites. I am sure you could quote hundreds and thousands of "popes" and "saints" but you would never know if they are genuin or altered, or taken out of context. If I were to study the protestant doctrines, surely I would not do it through an anti-protestant book written by an angry muslim who wrote with the intention to desecrate the matter. I would read Luther himself, or Calvin, Wycliff or Tyndale.

I remember that a friend sent me this ridiculous anti-catholic book called "A woman rides the beast." No historical references, all his sources were from other protestant writers from the 19th and 20th century. He claimed that more people were executed in the inquisition than the entire population of Europe at the time. Just complete mumble jumble.

If you are genuinly interested in knowing what the catholic Church teches, then read the Council of Trent for yourself, read Denzinger, read St. Augustine. Just read something with real information. Then you have the tools to make up your mind. By the way, some books are in the mail.

Actually I was quoting from the fourth Council, of which I have a copy."67. Jews and excessive UsuryThe more the christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of Christians...We decree, under the same penalty, that Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions...68. Jews appearing in publicA difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish orSaracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress ...69. Jews not to hold public officesIt would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to beappointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians. .."There is more from that council however there is a limit to the amount of Characters in a comment.

Well, in a Christian state, why should infidels have the opportunity to weaken or damage the true Faith by having too influential positions in the country? Christ chose the most God-fearing people for the most important tasks, should not this be a good example for the structure of any Christian society? And if you can not distiguish Christians from others by their appearances, then you could eat foods offered o idols, like halal or kosher, without knowing it, or you could be taken advantage of, or even being fooled into praying with an infidel, which is a mortal sin too.. And in a Christian society, if you pay your taxes, you pay them to the Church. Why should some people in society be excempted from paying taxes just because they are nor christians?

They are not out of context. Read the Council of Trent and also the 4th Laternum Council (It is towards the end near the section about the Crusades).I tried to paste quotes however comment space is limited. The badge that Jews were forced to wear is very similar to the one that Hitler had the Jews wear. The laws for Jews living only in certain areas is also very similar.

I have been skimming through a lot of councils only finding vague hints at killings and threats.

However just as Turkey denies its holocaust against the Armenian does not mean that it did not occur.

In the same way to deny a crime much larger than the German crime would be just as crazy.

It is written in, "Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on June 14, 1751."

"The famous monk, Radulph, inspired long ago by an excess of zeal, was so inflamed against the Jews that he traversed Germany and France in the twelfth century and, by preaching against the Jews as the enemies of our holy religion, incited Christians to destroy them. This resulted in the deaths of a very large number of Jews."

We read in First Council of Lyons - 1245 A.D that the Catholic Church has the "right" to employ assassins to destroy "enemies of the cross".

Another Catholic Historian that speaks about atrocities done to Jews and Muslims (during the crusades) would be William of Tyre.

It would be easy to quote non Catholic Historians such as those that suffered from the Catholic Church, such as the Jews, Protestants and Muslims however I have not done so yet. Their accounts are numerous and speak in accord.

What is not out of context..? The fact that I looked up your quotes and they are altered? I have red the Council of Trent. And the Church does not deny the Crusades, why should She? There are nothing wrong about defending the faith when it is under attack. Have you not concidered the violence and deceit that other religions have tried to undermine the Catholic Church with? When a country, including it's government, becomes Catholic, it is natural to ask the people who would oppose it over time to either convert or leave the country. And this has been done, like in Spain f.ex. with the muslims, who had been fighting them for 700 (!!) years. Again, why this pacifist attitute? It's not Biblical at all. Just look at the Old Testament wars. What does it matter if you quote a monk you don't like? What does it proove or disproove about the establishment of the Catholic Church by Christ? Nothing! So what if I should quote a protestant I don't like..? It would not be an argument against protestantism, just an historical detail. And don't trust internetsources too much either. You need to look at real, oldfashion books if you want true information. Anyway, this discussion is really pointless, since you have already made up your mind beforehand. At least I learned protestantism thoroghly from protestant sources before I rejected it when faces with real Catholicism. I can't choose for you. But you are on your way to hell for rejecting Christian teachings, tradition (which the Bible is a part of), history, Jesus election of St. Peter and the Christian hierarchy that followed.. And on and on.

The crusades did not stop Islam from taking over Europe. Looking at what happened in Greece and Turkey proves that. Both were taken over by the Muslims.

Matthew 5

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.Love for Enemies 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I have Catholic family, and have read doctrines. I have rejected the Catholic Church for rejecting key parts of scripture and embracing "another" gospel. The is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ, not a Catholic Priest that needs my confession nor a saint but Jesus Christ.

Rejecting key-parts of Scripture?! Absolutely nonsens! You are just interpreting passages subjectly by your own authority, or by someone elses self-declared authority. And because of this you are concluding that the Catholic Church must be rejecting something. But the Church sees the Bible as a whole unit. Everything is inspired, each part just as much. Even the 7 books protestants have removed..

And Greece and Turkey had both been lost to Eastern heretics BEFORE they became muslim, so they were punished by God for their unbelief. They were not Christian nations anymore, and that's why they became muslim.

Why not quote the Lord Jesus Himself..Luke 19:26 But I (Jesus) say to you, that to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: and from him that hath not, even that which he hath, shall be taken from him. [27] But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me.

OddChild we have to be careful about how to interpret Matt. 5. What Jesus i saying here is not to let jews, muslims och protestants to do or say what ever they want. He is saing that we shall forgive those who harm us, our own flesh or property.But those who "harm" God... Luke 19:26 is a good example. They are not my enemies but His. Here is two more exemples:

Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation. For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.[Luke 12:51-53]

Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.[Matt. 10:34]

I wanted to alter one of my comments in our discussion.. You mentioned a quote by Pope Innocent III about Mary supposedly being "conceived in sin." I have not been able to find this quote, but I don't see the problem with it, since it was common in the Church to have two oppinions BEFORE the Immaculate Conception was defined by the Church.. Some said she was conceived without sin, others only that she was born without sin. Even a pope can have a private oppinion about something when he is not speaking ex cathedra. And today the Immaculate conception is a dogma. So I was mistaken when I said that the quote could be referring to her parents St. Anne and St. Joachim.